Posted on 02/07/2007 8:18:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
EL PASO, Texas - A federal report released Wednesday on the shooting of a suspected drug smuggler by Border Patrol agents concurs with prosecutors that the men failed to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Some members of Congress have criticized the case against Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were fired after their obstruction of justice convictions and have each been sentenced to more than a decade in federal prison.
Congressional critics, who say the men were doing their jobs when they injured Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in 2005 near El Paso, had sought the release of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report.
The report "has just emboldened our position because there is nothing in there that indicates these agents were not justified in shooting this individual," said Tara Setmayer, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif. "This finally sheds some light on what these agents were thinking."
She pointed to a written statement by Compean in which she said reflects that he "clearly believed the drug smuggler had a weapon and feared for his life."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., agreed Wednesday to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., to hold a hearing on the case, as she requested.
"I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme, given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs," Feinstein said in a statement. "These men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn't receive."
The heavily redacted, 77-page report, drafted last year, offers few new details. It primarily outlines what Aldrete said happened on Feb. 17, 2005, as he tried to run from Border Patrol agents after trying to elude them in a van loaded with marijuana.
According to the report, Aldrete, who was given immunity and has filed a multimillion-dollar claim against the federal government, told investigators he was unarmed and was shot as he ran from Compean and other agents. He said he tried to surrender and ran again after Compean slipped while trying to hit him with the butt of a shotgun.
The report also notes that other agents on the scene that day could not confirm whether Aldrete was armed and initially lied about whether they were aware of the shooting. They later cooperated with authorities. Those agents, whose names were removed from the report, were not prosecuted.
In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Rep. John Culberson (news, bio, voting record), a Texas Democrat, said Ramos and Compean "may not have followed proper procedure following the shooting, which at most should have resulted in their suspension from the force, but not criminal procedure."
A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case and who has been widely criticized for pursing the agents and not the drug dealer shot, declined to comment.
Lawyers for Ramos and Compean did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
The former agents were sentenced in October and reported to prison in January. Federal prison officials confirmed Tuesday that Ramos was attacked in a Mississippi prison after the airing of an episode of "America's Most Wanted" that highlighted his case.
Rohrabacher and other supporters of the agents have criticized President Bush for not pardoning them.
___
Associated Press writer Suzanne Gamboa reported from Washington, D.C.
Where's the headline screaming:
"Homeland Security Officials Lied To Congress, Inspector General admits"
There's no healing process. Till hell freezes over and then we'll fight on ice.
hubris
Of course, because no police officer has ever lied about seeing a gun in a suspect's hands after they are accused of shooting without cause.
The "lie" that is being advanced here by the government is bad information given to congressman about what investigative documents they could provide regarding the case.
It's not acceptable, but by itself does not relate to the trial and conviction of the agents.
If there are witnesses who lied on the stand, that would be an important point. We don't have the transcript, but both defendants and thier lawyers were at the trial (as I imagine was one of their union representatives, but I don't know that for a fact).
So if there were obvious lies told at the trial, we would know about them, and we'd have the names of the witnesses that lied.
Instead, what we have is a smear campaign on the character of the witnesses that testified against him. When you have to smear your accusers, it usually means you don't have a direct refutation of their testimony.
The closest thing we've seen in print to refute anything is a preliminary report that the bullet could not positively be matched to the gun of Ramos. Unfortunately, that isn't meaningful to the case, because Ramos stipulated that the bullet was from his gun, which suggests nobody really had a doubt about it. Plus Compean got more time than Ramos, and Compean didn't even hit the guy. Just shooting at him was considered a crime.
BTW, I'm less certain of Ramos's guilt than Compean, and the fact they got about the same time suggests something in the court record that the defendants are NOT leaking to us. Compean is the one that was lying in wait, and purportedly attempted to strike the man while he was surrendering.
Ramos could make the argument that he heard shots, ran over the hill, saw Compean bleeding, thought he had been shot, saw the defendant turning toward him, and shot back in self defense.
There is some reason he is tied to Compean in this case, and I bet someone knows what it is, but I don't.
Reasonable doubt. The govt is trying too hard to convict. You taking the side of a govt that already lied to convict is despicable. Republican or not, this govt needs to pardon these two.
Show me a lie the government told in the court, and I'll consider your complaint. Telling congress you have a document and later finding you don't have it is something for congress to take up with the agency. It has nothing to do with the case or the agents.
Telling the jury these two had said they "wanted to shoot a Mexican" while portraying the drug dealer as a saint is a lie and dishonest.
How do you know the jury was told they "wanted to shoot a mexican"? Having not seen the transcript, I don't know what was presented during the case. Sutton said he didn't use an investigative report as evidence, but had people testify.
So if it WAS presented, it's because they found a witness willing to testify under oath that he heard them say that. If so, how do we know the witness was lying? All we know is that the government doesn't have some documentation of that statement that they said they had.
I doubt anybody presented a drug smuggler with immunity as a "saint".
These guys have been convicted already. (past tense) Did you expect the AUSA's not to do their jobs and not try convict? I guess if did, then you would be complaining of the waste of gov't funds.
"It's tough going when the MSM, all Democrat politicians, and many Republican politicians are all on the same (criminal) side."
Globalists Elite
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.